(PC) Bolds v. Leuvanos, et al.
Filing
79
ORDER DENYING 77 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/07/2024. (Maldonado, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JON-ERIK ROOSEVELT BOLDS, JR.,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
LUEVANOS, et al.,,
15
No. 1:21-cv-01668-NODJ-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 77)
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed
20
February 6, 2024. Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel due indigency, incarceration, limited
21
knowledge of the law, limited access to the law library, and potential conflicting testimony.
22
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
23
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff
24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
25
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the
26
Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113
27
F.3d at 1525.
28
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
1
1
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
2
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
3
on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
4
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
5
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
6
if it assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
7
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with
8
similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to
9
his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the
10
appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most
11
actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be
12
in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether
13
exception circumstances exist and here, they do not. At this stage of the litigation, the Court
14
cannot find Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, as Defendants have filed a motion for
15
summary judgment. In addition, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal
16
education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would
17
warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion for
18
the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 7, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?